The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='egofed']I know how the tax system works. So someone who is successful is now "more equal" and the gov't deserves a larger percentage of their money? What if we based the system by what gov't services you used instead of what you earned? Or better yet, figure up the amount that the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country. Bam! True equality in taxes. Face it, the current tax system is based on demand (largely created by our entitlements and military), not "equality". Do you support affirmative action and other discriminatory "diversity" practices? If so, then I know pretty much all I need to about your belief in "equality".:roll:[/QUOTE]

I asked a very basic question, which you claimed to have knowledge of within one sentence. Not quite sure what the point is of the rest of your unfilitered stream-of-consciousness whatever-it-is you've posted above, however.

If you understand basic principles of taxation, you should also understand that saying something like "figure up the amount that the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country" is a *monumentally* dunderheadedly simplistic thing to say - it's a phrase that disacknowledges the very notion that there's *so* much room for debate of "basic and required gov't services" as to render the point moot. Basic and required for some may exclude police, or the EPA; others might be happy to let the poor die in the streets with no food, shelter or medical care. fuck 'em for not bootstrapping hard enough or something. Others do believe in the basic philosophical tenets of a "welfare state" (and this has a conceptual definition if you can put down your knee-jerk aversion to the word 'welfare' for a moment).

So, hooray for a deeply empty platitude. Let's debate "the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country." I'll join in this conversation, too. Maybe we can talk about spending and stuff, because I like stuff, and you like stuff. We just need to agree on stuff, you know?

*bows*

I'm happy to keep the conversation going at the level you set, hombre. :lol:
 
[quote name='egofed']Wrong. If I play the stock market and choose wisely, and you play and choose poorly, we still used the same resources but had different outcomes. I have other examples if you need em. Also, the same police and military protect everyone.[/QUOTE]

FDIC ring a bell, chachi?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']And others would say that social equality is about making sure our fellow citizens don't get left behind in poverty...[/QUOTE]


So the gov't is supposed to guarantee equal outcomes and not just equal opportunity in the eyes of the law? What about your fellow citizens who have no incentive but to live off the taxpayer handouts and reproduce without responsibility? For the gov't to be fair and equal to all of its citizens, shouldn't everyone receive welfare, SNAP, medicare, etc in EQUAL amounts?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I asked a very basic question, which you claimed to have knowledge of within one sentence. Not quite sure what the point is of the rest of your unfilitered stream-of-consciousness whatever-it-is you've posted above, however.

If you understand basic principles of taxation, you should also understand that saying something like "figure up the amount that the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country" is a *monumentally* dunderheadedly simplistic thing to say - it's a phrase that disacknowledges the very notion that there's *so* much room for debate of "basic and required gov't services" as to render the point moot. Basic and required for some may exclude police, or the EPA; others might be happy to let the poor die in the streets with no food, shelter or medical care. fuck 'em for not bootstrapping hard enough or something. Others do believe in the basic philosophical tenets of a "welfare state" (and this has a conceptual definition if you can put down your knee-jerk aversion to the word 'welfare' for a moment).

So, hooray for a deeply empty platitude. Let's debate "the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country." I'll join in this conversation, too. Maybe we can talk about spending and stuff, because I like stuff, and you like stuff. We just need to agree on stuff, you know?

*bows*

I'm happy to keep the conversation going at the level you set, hombre. :lol:[/QUOTE]


I'm talking in broad terms. I just want to know if you feel that the gov't should have different rules for different people. Seems to me that true equality only comes when the same expectation of contribution and responsibility is applied to everyone equally. Is a child tax credit really fair and equal to everyone? Yes or no, along with a reason is the appropriate answer here, hombre.:roll:
 
[quote name='egofed']Seems to me that true equality only comes when the same expectation of contribution and responsibility is applied to everyone equally.[/QUOTE]

I expect quadriplegics to run a 40-yard-dash in the same speed as a healthy adult.



As for children, if you have to ask for broader social/economic benefits for children, you're either a blundering idiot or a troll. Also, if you think there are no broader economic benefits to procreation, you're no longer to make *any* claims about Social Security. Ever. ;)
 
[quote name='Clak']Is it just me, or does he have no understanding of what equality means? A flat tax rate wouldn't even be close. Disingenuous as a motherfucker.[/QUOTE]

If I pay 10% of my income in taxes and so does everyone else, that's an EQUAL percentage. Argue against that logic.;)

PS-How do you feel about politically active Democrats like Dionne Warwick who evade paying their taxes?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I expect quadriplegics to run a 40-yard-dash in the same speed as a healthy adult.



As for children, if you have to ask for broader social/economic benefits for children, you're either a blundering idiot or a troll. Also, if you think there are no broader economic benefits to procreation, you're no longer to make *any* claims about Social Security. Ever. ;)[/QUOTE]


HEHhehehehehehehehehheehehehhe......I take that as a "no"? I love how the internet turns everybody into a tough guy. Go drink another soy latte and cool off, Eastwood.
 
Dionne fucking Warwick?

Like this woman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGbnua2kSa8

If that's all you have, GTFO. Digging back to someone who was last relevant a quarter of a fucking century ago. Christ, what horeshit pro wrestling-esque radio talk show entertainer mentioned her yesterday that the "celebrity" at the forefront of your mind is Dionne fucking Warwick? She's not even "VH1 Reality Show" caliber in terms of celebrity status any more. Might as well talk about that fuckin' guy who played "Boner" on "Growing Pains," while we're at it.

fucking shit, man. Have some self-respect when you open your mouth.

Flat tax creates economic imbalance, particularly at the municipal level. Because people don't live in randomly-assigned fashion, and live in economically homogeneous communities. Flat tax rates pool different levels of funds in different communities accordingly (if using a flat % rate), therefore creating inequitable municipal services and perpetuating a de facto caste system of sorts.

Do you even try, or do you just have a GOP See-N'-Say that you pull on when responding?
 
Leave it to goddamn Dionne Warwick to piss it away for everyone else.

I don't even want to know what Ernest Borgnine's up to. Knowing that guy, he could unwittingly light a powder keg under either side's platform and not know it. Don't get me started on Borgnine.
 
vigoda.jpg
 
[quote name='Strell']Borgnine is dead. :[[/QUOTE]
Oh christ, that's classic Borgnine! We get it, Ernie, "obamacare death squads." You made your point. Way to go.
 
[quote name='egofed']So the gov't is supposed to guarantee equal outcomes and not just equal opportunity in the eyes of the law? What about your fellow citizens who have no incentive but to live off the taxpayer handouts and reproduce without responsibility? For the gov't to be fair and equal to all of its citizens, shouldn't everyone receive welfare, SNAP, medicare, etc in EQUAL amounts?[/QUOTE]

So you're saying you want to advocate a societal Darwinism. Everyone gets the same and if anyone gets left behind we're better as a genepool without them? Before you say yes, go take a look at some 3rd world countries and tell me how it's working for them...

FURTHERMORE, everyone does have EQUAL ACCESS to welfare, SNAP, medicare, when they NEED it but not everyone has the same NEED for those services.
 
[quote name='dohdough']A vast majority of people on those scales of income aren't making it on stocks. Not to mention the government controls used to even make those earnings possible on the stock market. Even in your example, there are different rules and protections for varying levels of capital that someone making $40k on stocks would never have access to if they were making a million.

Either way, no one person can accumulate that kind of capital on their own. A person making a million in income requires the services of MANY people. Instead of requiring something as simple as roads for their own personal usage, they need the roads for their employees as well. No roads plus no employees equals no moneyz or at least less of it.

There's also a reason why a lot of local infrastructure and public services are tied to local taxes and it's not to give "equal" protection to EVERYONE.


tl;dr:

[/QUOTE]

There are several different levels of taxation and hundreds of different types of taxes that businesses and individual people are charged.

But sure I can stoop to your disingenious level.

A person making $40,000 a year requires the services of many people.

You act is if an employee of a company is some type of serf rather than someone who is taking part in the company and benefitting from it.

In your words "If I ain't rich from it, who gives a fuck"

"No roads? I ain't working because there isn't any way to get there! Not my problem either, rich guy! Pay the man" What is this Warcraft?
 
[quote name='Knoell']There are several different levels of taxation and hundreds of different types of taxes that businesses and individual people are charged.

But sure I can stoop to your disingenious level.[/quote]
Compare and contrast. How is it disingenuous? Is it more or less disingenuous than the post I was responding to?

I'll be waiting with bated breath for your keen analysis.

A person making $40,000 a year requires the services of many people.
Click to expand...
Never said otherwise.

You act is if an employee of a company is some type of serf rather than someone who is taking part in the company and benefitting from it.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...and you call ME disingenuous? It's not like someone can just up and leave their job and find a square deal somewhere else at the drop of a hat, but please continue to try and bullshit us into thinking so.

In your words "If I ain't rich from it, who gives a fuck"
Click to expand...
Citation needed.

"No roads? I ain't working because there isn't any way to get there! Not my problem either, rich guy! Pay the man" What is this Warcraft?
Click to expand...
It's like you have no clue about how capital works.
 
[quote name='Knoell']"No roads? I ain't working because there isn't any way to get there! Not my problem either, rich guy! Pay the man" What is this Warcraft?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It's like there's hundreds of people working at a factory, and the guy who owns the factory is the only one benefiting from the roads or something.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Compare and contrast. How is it disingenuous? Is it more or less disingenuous than the post I was responding to?

I'll be waiting with bated breath for your keen analysis.


Never said otherwise.


LOLZ...and you call ME disingenuous? It's not like someone can just up and leave their job and find a square deal somewhere else at the drop of a hat, but please continue to try and bullshit us into thinking so.


Citation needed.


It's like you have no clue about how capital works.[/QUOTE]

Remember I was stooping to your disingenious level. :roll:

Citation is needed for the guy who believes that you have to make it worth it to someone for them to want to make a living, but you won't admit that government programs prevent people from attempting to make it on their own.

Have you ever listened to what you said?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Remember I was stooping to your disingenious level. :roll:[/quote]
Hey smart guy, I know you have an inability to figure out context, but go back to my initial post and try to figure it out, or do you also have your blinders on for your ideological brethren? Not EVERYTHING is about YOU. I swear, you freaking cons always accuse us "liberal nazis" of circlejerking, but you NEVER call each other out on ANYTHING, which we do to our "team" ALL the damn time.

Citation is needed for the guy who believes that you have to make it worth it to someone for them to want to make a living, but you won't admit that government programs prevent people from attempting to make it on their own.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because somehow, the programs that are being stripped away today were somehow getting in the way of opportunity and a fair and equitable market that existed before those programs were implemented. Oh wait, that fair and equitable market never existed back then. Better off having people starve in the streets or eating canned pet food.

Btw, "if I ain't rich from it, then fuck it" is different from "making a living." Pick a goal post and stop trying to move it.

Have you ever listened to what you said?
Click to expand...
All the time...and everyone else's too. That's how I know that you don't think past the post you're making.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hey smart guy, I know you have an inability to figure out context, but go back to my initial post and try to figure it out, or do you also have your blinders on for your ideological brethren? Not EVERYTHING is about YOU. I swear, you freaking cons always accuse us "liberal nazis" of circlejerking, but you NEVER call each other out on ANYTHING, which we do to our "team" ALL the damn time.


Yeah, because somehow, the programs that are being stripped away today were somehow getting in the way of opportunity and a fair and equitable market that existed before those programs were implemented. Oh wait, that fair and equitable market never existed back then. Better off having people starve in the streets or eating canned pet food.

Btw, "if I ain't rich from it, then fuck it" is different from "making a living." Pick a goal post and stop trying to move it.


All the time...and everyone else's too. That's how I know that you don't think past the post you're making.[/QUOTE]

Lol, noone says you all work together because you are all left leaning or liberal (Although you may have been called that). I make fun of you because you armchair quarterback each topic as if you really know what the fuck is going on, and the rest of your cronies go "yup", "yup", "yup". Then you alternate.

Dohdough "A person making $1,000,000 requires more government services and infrastructure to make that money(and protect it) than a person making $40,000. It's not a hard concept to follow. "

Sorry when you make this kind of statement there is a lot of wiggle room. Do you want to go over everything a business owner has to engage in tax and fee wise that an individual doesn't? (I assume that is who you are talking about. Since a million dollar wage earner wouldn't care much for roads either compared to the $40,000 wage earner. No roads, and NEITHER get their salary.) But sure let's just pretend that the roads are built and maintained solely for the wealthy, and its just a bonus for the poor people.

At what point will you admit that the government programs out there are more of a bonus that people love to get, and not a hand up?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Lol, noone says you all work together because you are all left leaning or liberal (Although you may have been called that). I make fun of you because you armchair quarterback each topic as if you really know what the fuck is going on, and the rest of your cronies go "yup", "yup", "yup". Then you alternate.

[/QUOTE]

Nail.on.head :applause:
 
:rofl: You guys are a laugh riot, keep smugly patting yourselves on the back. See the thing is, we have actual experts posting here yet none of you give a fuck. No no, ivory tower liberals and all. If we had a member of CATO posting here you all would be creaming yourselves. You're a bunch of hypocrites who simply don't know when to stop.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Lol, noone says you all work together because you are all left leaning or liberal (Although you may have been called that). I make fun of you because you armchair quarterback each topic as if you really know what the fuck is going on, and the rest of your cronies go "yup", "yup", "yup". Then you alternate.[/quote]
Sounds more like you're projecting to me. But I guess mrsilkunderwear, granturismo, and egofed haven't really been posting in the last couple days so your selective amnesia is kicking in. Don't let that get in your way of a good insult though. Oh wait, I guess you don't.

Dohdough "A person making $1,000,000 requires more government services and infrastructure to make that money(and protect it) than a person making $40,000. It's not a hard concept to follow. "

Sorry when you make this kind of statement there is a lot of wiggle room. Do you want to go over everything a business owner has to engage in tax and fee wise that an individual doesn't? (I assume that is who you are talking about. Since a million dollar wage earner wouldn't care much for roads either compared to the $40,000 wage earner. No roads, and NEITHER get their salary.) But sure let's just pretend that the roads are built and maintained solely for the wealthy, and its just a bonus for the poor people.
Click to expand...
In our system in which capital wields more power than labor, systems and infrastructure are going to be created and maintained to perpetuate that power structure. It serves to disproportionately create more capital for those at the top rather than those at the bottom. Do people in the entire economic spectrum benefit? Of course, they do, but it's far from equitable as different places extract different levels of benefits from it. If the analogy of roads is too complicated for you, then think about schools. Everyone benefits from it, but not everyone benefits from it in the same way because not all schools are equal nor are the socio-economic situations of the students. Some students will be the boss and make a shit load of money and requires an educated workforce, without which, the boss can't. In fact, it's in the boss' self-interest to make sure that there's an educated-enough pool of workers to pull from and to do that, the boss needs to pay more in taxes because capital isn't distributed in an equitable manner.

That's all fluff because the most hilarious thing about your post is that you don't know what a salary is. But please, tell me more about business taxes on personal income.

At what point will you admit that the government programs out there are more of a bonus that people love to get, and not a hand up?
Click to expand...
I guess the poor are the only ones that get aid from the government.:roll:

I'm still waiting for you to compare and contrast disingenuous remarks made by myself and someone else. TIA
 
[quote name='Clak']:rofl: You guys are a laugh riot, keep smugly patting yourselves on the back. See the thing is, we have actual experts posting here yet none of you give a fuck. No no, ivory tower liberals and all. If we had a member of CATO posting here you all would be creaming yourselves. You're a bunch of hypocrites who simply don't know when to stop.[/QUOTE]


We need a page that lists people's "expertise", and background if they are gonna claim it. I can't even get an occupation out of most guys on here when asked point blank. I'm often accused of living in a conservative echo chamber by certain members here, I almost strictly watch MSNBC to get the left propaganda, and listen to conservative talk radio to get their propaganda. Fair and balanced;). My point is that there is SOOOO much disinformation out there that it is difficult to sort truth from crap, and even harder to make informed opinions with all the spin that is placed on it. I'm no tax expert by any means, but I can state my opinion that taking 10% of any man's income, while also charging all the other taxes and fees from federal, state, and local gov'ts should be plenty if we run our gov't efficiently. You made $24 Million, you pay 2.4 million in fed taxes. How can you guys want more than that? No "expert", especially on a video game forum, is gonna convince me otherwise.:roll: I did start watching the Netflix documentary "We aren't Broke" at work yesterday, caught a few runs so I haven't finished it yet....but if Bank of America, Verizon, and GE, among others, are truly paying 0 or even negative rates of tax, then we definitely need tax law reform. I would like to hear these companies answers to this claim.

PS- You guys really cracked me up with the goofy responses to my add on comment about Dione Warwick:applause:. And, doh, I read the story in my local paper, not sure if Rush has covered it yet, but keep trying to paint me with that brush. I do think you hurt Obama's feelings about her being old and irrelevant, I mean the man sang to her at a rally for pete's sake! He wouldn't waste his time on B-listers:lol:.
 
I'm no tax expert by any means, but I can state my opinion that taking 10% of any man's income, while also charging all the other taxes and fees from federal, state, and local gov'ts should be plenty if we run our gov't efficiently"
Click to expand...

Show your work.

Also, opinion doesn't mean "things I believe despite all available evidence". It is my opinion bacon should be 20 calories per serving and no fat, it doesn't mean anyone has to give a shit.
 
[quote name='egofed']I can't even get an occupation out of most guys on here when asked point blank.[/QUOTE]

There's a reason for this. Those parties will try to use any personal detail against you that they can. They'll attack your job, your family, your home town, your skin color, etc. for whatever reason they can come up with.

That's why they try very hard not to give up any of their own personal information. Because they're afraid someone else will sink to their own tactics. And they can't handle it when that happens.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Sounds more like you're projecting to me. But I guess mrsilkunderwear, granturismo, and egofed haven't really been posting in the last couple days so your selective amnesia is kicking in. Don't let that get in your way of a good insult though. Oh wait, I guess you don't.


In our system in which capital wields more power than labor, systems and infrastructure are going to be created and maintained to perpetuate that power structure. It serves to disproportionately create more capital for those at the top rather than those at the bottom. Do people in the entire economic spectrum benefit? Of course, they do, but it's far from equitable as different places extract different levels of benefits from it. If the analogy of roads is too complicated for you, then think about schools. Everyone benefits from it, but not everyone benefits from it in the same way because not all schools are equal nor are the socio-economic situations of the students. Some students will be the boss and make a shit load of money and requires an educated workforce, without which, the boss can't. In fact, it's in the boss' self-interest to make sure that there's an educated-enough pool of workers to pull from and to do that, the boss needs to pay more in taxes because capital isn't distributed in an equitable manner.

[/QUOTE]

To add to your point:

Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, etc can't create the economies of scale necessary to make their operations work if there wasn't a national highway system. Think about how valuable that system is for the transportation of goods and services. It may have been sold as a necessity for national defense, but commerce benefited more than any other party.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']To add to your point:

Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, etc can't create the economies of scale necessary to make their operations work if there wasn't a national highway system. Think about how valuable that system is for the transportation of goods and services. It may have been sold as a necessity for national defense, but commerce benefited more than any other party.[/QUOTE]

Who benefits more? The large stores, the companies who supply them, the employees that work for them (both the stores and the suppliers), the customers who shop there, etc.?

Sure, any one of those chains, as a company, makes millions - but millions of people get to take advantage of what they offer.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Who benefits more? The large stores, the companies who supply them, the employees that work for them (both the stores and the suppliers), the customers who shop there, etc.?

Sure, any one of those chains, as a company, makes millions - but millions of people get to take advantage of what they offer.[/QUOTE]

real wages and median income continue to fall, corporate profits are at all time highs and their political influence is through the roof.
 
Their political influence is through the roof because we have crooked politicians in office that can't be trusted.

Sure, the guy paying the hitman is a bad person, but I'm more concerned with the guy who takes the job.
 
Why don't we have equal concern for both? I'll agree with you that at least one of those guys we can directly do something about.
 
Because it's the politicians who stand up and say they're going to fight for us, then take the blood money and stab us in the back as soon as we're not paying attention.

As you said, we can only really change one of those.
Even if we pushed a button that shut down every single corrupt corporation instantly, if we still had corrupt politicians in power, then other corporations or individuals would just go in and work the system in their favor again.

Granted, if we could push a button that got rid of every single corrupt politician, that void would soon be filled by more people who let the power corrupt them - but that's why we need reform in such a way that prevents these individuals from having so much power in the first place.
 
Or we could be big boys and girls and realize that people are corruptible, and as such it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. No politician (including the infallible Paul family) is incorruptible. The only thing we can do about it is to make collusion between politicians and corporations a serious crime, with serious punishments, and of course we'd have to actuality enforce this rather than ignoring it.

Of course we can keep daydreaming about some sort of Angelic politician that will come down from the heavens one day and wipe out corruption in Washington. It's not going to happen.
 
[quote name='Clak']The only thing we can do about it is to make collusion between politicians and corporations a serious crime, with serious punishments, and of course we'd have to actuality enforce this rather than ignoring it.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good. So, do you expect the corporations to make and enforce these laws or the politicians? Because there's really only one of those two groups that has the ability to do so. Which is why I expect more out of them.
 
Why is it that when a corporation does something reprehensible or just plain illegal, it's usually forgiven, like when some dumbass does something predictably stupid. You just know they're going to do it, so nobody is surprised. Politicians turn out to be corruptible, and some folks lose their shit. Now I get that they're the ones who are supposed to keep the corps in line, but then I've used that logic to explain why I trust politicians over some corporate entity, and that apparently is laughable. That at least they're supposed to be working in my best interest. Seems like a double standard there.

But to answer bob's question, I honestly don't know. To some extent we'll always have collusion between companies and politicians, especially since companies are "people too my friend". We know where you and some others here stand between politicians and corporations, we know where the rest of us stand, who would do the most to stop corruption? We could stop regulation of business, that would help separate business and government. Of course that would also give them the ability to get away with even more than they already do. We could regulate even more, but of course there is already collusion between regulators and business in some cases.

I'm not sure it's a problem that can actually be solved as it comes down to this, people are going to do what people do.
 
I don't think it's a double standard as much... it's just different expectations.

We both agree, corporations and politicians are two totally different groups of people. So, it's not unreasonable to hold them to different standards.

I *expect* a corporation to screw everyone over in pursuit of the almighty dollar. It's what they do.

I don't know what to expect out of politicians. That's why I don't trust them.

It's like - I know what the zombies are going to do, so I keep my distance from them and never underestimate them. It's the survivors you gotta watch out for.
 
I can't describe how proud I am right now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/stacey-campfield-tennessee_n_2552781.html

Under Campfield's bill, welfare recipients would face a loss of benefits if their children showed poor academic performance. It's unclear how these factors would be tied to one another, or how the children's performance would be assessed.
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to see a conservative stand up for something that makes sense. Linking welfare benefits to the grades of the recipients children? Bloody brilliant. If making those little moochers poorer doesn't improve their grades, then I don't know what will. While we're at it, maybe we should stop those free school lunch programs too, probably raise their grades by at least one letter.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Their political influence is through the roof because we have crooked politicians in office that can't be trusted.

Sure, the guy paying the hitman is a bad person, but I'm more concerned with the guy who takes the job.[/QUOTE]

That was one of the ideas from the Contract From America that I agree with more and more. Term limits really are something that should be looked into.

Also, I wish public financing and a parliamentary system was in place. It sucks that the ability to hold people accountable is about nil. I would much rather a system where we can hold leaders accountable when they betray the public's trust.


With that said, I have to give Republican's some credit in NC. They have put forth some of the dumbest shit I have ever seen, but they did put forth two things I agree with this week. Raising of the speed limit and impounding vehicles for those without insurance are both smart ideas. Doesn't offset the stupid shit they have been doing, but it does show that maybe they aren't complete idiots.
 
I had to post this because it's just so bizarre. Also because I love Reddit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...st-church-video/2011/05/31/AGgoiPFH_blog.html

As President Obama honored fallen soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, three members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the ceremony, holding signs that read “Pray for more dead soldiers” and “God hates your prayers,” as the controversial group has become known to do. They were met by about 70 counterprotesters, including members from a group just as contentious as the church: the Ku Klux Klan.
Click to expand...
 
Listened to Glenn Beck this morning on the commute to work. He was interviewing the CEO of Goldline.

Hearing him talk down listeners down from fearmongering of gold crashing (because it is) while singing the fearmongering song of "Obama is going to turn the US into the Hunger Games" (not hyperbole on my part, mind) was fucking hilarious.

Don't be scared to death of the real world, be scared to death of the ideological one.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Listened to Glenn Beck this morning on the commute to work. He was interviewing the CEO of Goldline.

Hearing him talk down listeners down from fearmongering of gold crashing (because it is) while singing the fearmongering song of "Obama is going to turn the US into the Hunger Games" (not hyperbole on my part, mind) was fucking hilarious.

Don't be scared to death of the real world, be scared to death of the ideological one.[/QUOTE]

First Bitcoin, now precious metals, seems like all the anti-regulation, tin foil hat wearing darling investments are tumbling lately. Guess the gubment ain't as bad as talk radio makes it out to be...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Listened to Glenn Beck this morning on the commute to work. He was interviewing the CEO of Goldline.

Hearing him talk down listeners down from fearmongering of gold crashing (because it is) while singing the fearmongering song of "Obama is going to turn the US into the Hunger Games" (not hyperbole on my part, mind) was fucking hilarious.

Don't be scared to death of the real world, be scared to death of the ideological one.[/QUOTE]

That guy must really hate Boehner admitting that the debt crisis was a hoax. Gold prices seemed to have started tanking right around when he started making rational comments.
 
Even Beck's lunacy isn't enough to prop up the price of an entire commodity. Actually now that I think about it, someone should draw a cartoon with Beck in an Atlas pose, only it's a giant gold bar rather than the earth on his shoulders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top